Cheldon Waggoner v. Marlene Coffey , 645 F. App'x 557 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 23 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CHELDON DEWAYNE WAGGONER,                        No. 15-16149
    AKA Cheldon Waggoner, AKA Cheldon
    D. Waggoner,                                     D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02040-NVW-
    MEA
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    MARLENE COFFEY, Protective Custody
    Administrator at Central Office,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 15, 2016**
    Before:        GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Arizona state prisoner Cheldon Dewayne Waggoner appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying his requests for
    protective custody. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
    novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 
    630 F.3d 889
    , 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28
    U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
    (order) (dismissal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Waggoner’s action because Waggoner
    failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant knew of Waggoner’s alleged
    fear of an assault by other inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837
    (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment
    . . . unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . .
    safety[.]”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
    (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present
    factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    15-16149
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-16149

Citation Numbers: 645 F. App'x 557

Judges: Christen, Goodwin, Leavy

Filed Date: 3/23/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024